Shudde Fath v. TX Dept of Transportation, e, 670 F. App'x 294

Appellants (environmental groups and individuals) sued FHWA/TxDOT/Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority under NEPA challenging three highway projects in Austin, Texas, including the SH 45 tolled freeway.
District court denied Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction; Appellants appealed and filed an Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal to stop right-of-way clearing for SH 45 scheduled to begin November 8.
Central legal contention: whether the district court erred by relying solely on 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f) (FHWA NEPA regs) to assess impermissible segmentation, instead of also applying CEQ regulations 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.4 and 1508.25.
The Fifth Circuit considered the four standard injunctive-relief factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest) and required Appellants to prove all elements.
The court held Appellants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because they offered no on-point authority; existing precedent supports using FHWA’s 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f) for segmentation analysis.
Because Appellants could not prove likelihood of success, the court denied the Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal and denied as moot appellees’ ancillary motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by relying solely on 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f) instead of also applying CEQ regs (40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.4, 1508.25) to assess improper segmentation under NEPA	Appellants: segmentation must be assessed using CEQ rules in tandem with FHWA regs; district court’s exclusive reliance on § 771.111(f) was incorrect	Appellees: FHWA’s NEPA implementation regulation § 771.111(f) supplies the appropriate analysis; district court correctly relied on it	Court: Appellants did not show likelihood of success; no on-point authority supports their view; case law supports relying on § 771.111(f); motion denied

Save Barton Creek, Ass'n v. FHWA, 950 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1992) (endorsing FHWA NEPA implementation regs as the relevant factors for segmentation analysis)
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (cited as supporting authority on segmentation analysis)
Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court discussion of segmentation and project-splitting principles)
Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting a merits panel is not bound by a motions panel ruling)